Leave a Comment Johan
What the taxpayers’ $1.5 million is paying for with the defense of DOMA
October 21, 2011
By Adam Bink
Nonsense arguments like this. From The Huffington Post:
In an Oct. 14 motion filed with the U.S. District Court in San Francisco, attorneys representing the House make the case that gay people “are far from politically powerless” and can’t say they face “discrimination [that] is unlikely to be soon rectified by legislative means” — unlike other groups of people who are discriminated against.
“The very significant gains made by homosexual-rights groups both in legislative terms and in popular opinion — and the phenomenal speed at which those victories have come — demonstrate that they have ample ability to attract the favorable attention of lawmakers,” reads the 36-page brief filed by Bancroft PLLC, the firm hired by House Republican leaders to defend the constitutionality of DOMA.
The document ticks off political victories by the gay rights community over the past few years, including Senate confirmation of the first openly gay male federal judge, New York’s legalizing gay marriage and, of course, repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.” It also cites a recent Gallup poll that found more than two-thirds of Americans would vote for a “well-qualified gay candidate for president” if he or she were put up by their party.
“Accordingly, gays and lesbians cannot be labeled ‘politically powerless’ without draining that phrase of all meaning,” the lawyers argue. “Where a group is not lacking in political power, it cannot claim the ‘extraordinary protection from the majoritarian political process’ provided by heightened scrutiny.”
In other words, their defense of DOMA is that discrimination against gay people is legally okay because it probably will be rectified in time by Congress.
Gay people also haven’t been discriminated against for very long, so they can’t say they have a history of discrimination, the lawyers say. The label of “homosexual” was “not even recognized in the United States until the late nineteenth century,” they argue, citing a 2004 interview with the author of a book on gay marriage who said most anti-gay discrimination was “put in place between the 1920s and 1950s, and most [was] dismantled between the 1960s and the 1990s.”
The House legal team also says that gay people can’t consider their sexuality an “immutable” trait, like race or gender, and can’t argue that DOMA violates their fundamental rights because it doesn’t keep anyone from building a family with his or her same-sex partner. The lawyers also challenge the idea that gay people raise well-adjusted children and say that DOMA is justified because it “promotes responsible procreation.”
“There is nothing intrusive in the least about DOMA,” the lawyers conclude. “It is simply a definitional statute that defines, for federal law purposes, ‘marriage’ and ‘spouse.’”
(For legal wonks: Boehner’s attorneys are trying to prove that gay people are not a “discrete and insular minority.” That was the language the courts first used when announcing in the late 1930s that they would hold to the fire laws that discriminate against certain minorities under the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment.)
Filed under: DOMA trials
Having technical problems? E-mail prop8trial AT couragecampaign DOT org for assistance!
42 Comments Leave a Comment
1.
AnonyGrl | October 21, 2011 at 7:34 am
There is absolutely NOTHING in their statements that does not scream "WE WANT TO BE ABLE TO CONTINUE DISCRIMINATING AGAINST THESE PEOPLE BUT ARE LOSING THIS BATTLE AND WE KNOW IT SO WE ARE GOING TO TRY DELAYING TACTICS FOR NOW!"
I really want to know why I have to pay for this?
2.
Bill S. | October 21, 2011 at 7:57 am
Okay, when John Boehner starts pressing for DOMA repeal in the House MAYBE I'll believe it.
While gays and lesbians have certainly made enormous strides in the past 20–30 years, it is still unsupportable at this point in our nation's history, that gays and lesbians have the political power to legislatively achieve full, nationwide equality in all areas of the law in the normal span of time it takes to pass legislation. Court intervention is needed, and provided many of the boosts we needed to even get to this point (Romer v. Evans, Lawrence v. Texas, et al.).
3.
Ed in Lafayette | October 21, 2011 at 8:09 am
Here's my thing with the "responsible procreation" thing….Most people don't even *know* what DOMA is…..hell, there are a lot of gay people who don't know what it is…..So how can a law be about responsible procreation when most people don't even know what it is?
AnonyGrl and I talk quite a bit on Skype, and have agreed, that while we must continue fighting, the war is pretty much over.
4.
Sheryl_Carver | October 21, 2011 at 8:29 am
I was pretty much still a kid during the major civil rights movement in the 60's, & living in a small town in Maine, didn't really have a grasp of how irrational, evil, & determined the racial bigots were. I think our local paper & news filtered out the worst & probably most of what was going on.
Because I was so sheltered from the events of that time, this civil rights battle has an almost unreal quality about it. It's like I felt when JFK was assassinated – "this is America, not a 3rd world country. This doesn't happen here!?!" But it did. & it still does.
There will always be bigotry & prejudice, but naive little me never thought the day would come again when it would be not only OK but "required" for so many public figures to work so hard to demonize & discriminate against American citizens. Especially now that there are numerous studies by respected groups that PROVE that we LGBT folks aren't a danger to ANYONE!
At my age, this shouldn't surprise me, but I find that with each new report of more such crapola, I realize that I still don't really understand my own species.
5.
jpmassar | October 21, 2011 at 8:35 am
The frightening thing about these arguments is that the current incantation of the Supreme Court could easily agree with them.
6.
Ann S. | October 21, 2011 at 8:36 am
§
7.
Alan_Eckert | October 21, 2011 at 8:56 am
When a gay man can be fired for simply saying that they went to the park with his boyfriend over the weekend in many states, then there is still discrimination, and it doesn't look like this will be resolved through congressional means. Especially if Boehner and Canter would have their way. (OT, but Firefox wants to correct Boehner to "Boner," and it made me giggle)
8.
Sam_Handwich | October 21, 2011 at 9:04 am
gay people can’t consider their sexuality an “immutable” trait, like race or gender
WHAT??
DOMA is justified because it “promotes responsible procreation.”
WHAT???
9.
Ronnie | October 21, 2011 at 9:09 am
Exsqueeze me?????!!!! I can consider my sexuality whatever the frick I feel it to be & the government has no choice but to 100% accept that, respect that, & protect that. PERIOD!!!! or don't tax me. If the government thinks they can discriminate against every aspect of MY life by treating any aspect of MY life as less than or inferior to heterosexuals then they need to apply that to the amount of money they STEAL out of the paychecks of hard working LGBT Americans…Tax us equal, treat us equal as we are or stop taking our money. End of conversation… Subscribing & sharing…..
A Day in Gay America: Work
Gay people really do have all kinds of jobs. When we asked readers to send in their photos for A Day in Gay America, the diversity of your workplaces became clearer than ever.: http://www.advocate.com/Day_In_Gay_America/A_Day_…
Gay Adoptions Triple Over Last Decade: http://www.advocate.com/News/Daily_News/2011/10/2…
& today's 2011 LGBT History Month Icon…..
“I hear from people all over the world that my coming out has empowered them in their search for self.” ~ Dave Kopay, the first NFL player & one of the first professional athletes to come out. His autobiography was a New York Times best seller & is in its fifth printing. Drafted by the San Francisco 49ers in 1964, he has played for five NFL teams in his nine year career including the Detroit Lions, the Washington Redskins, the New Orleans Saints, & the Green Bay Packers. “There’s nothing like the rush of playing on Monday Night Football. There’s nothing that will ever fill that void.” Read more about him here: http://www.lgbthistorymonth.com/dave-kopay?tab=bi…
<3…Ronnie:
[youtube d79O5xn1S-U http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d79O5xn1S-U youtube]
10.
Cat | October 21, 2011 at 9:11 am
This is the Prop.8 trial all over again. Political power. History. Discrimination. Procreation. Child rearing. Animus. Did they even read Judge Walker's findings of fact?
11.
Steve | October 21, 2011 at 9:17 am
The stated goals of DOMA are silly, but even if you stipulate that they are valid, the law doesn't even further them in any way. DOMA isn't necessary for states to refuse recognizing marriages from other states. And denying federal benefits accomplishes absolutely nothing and it certainly doesn't prevent states from legalizing same-sex marriage. It's a useless law any way you look at it.
12.
Bob | October 21, 2011 at 9:36 am
How can a statute that is exclusively focused on same-sex relationships claim to regulate procreation, which (last I checked) requires heterosexual sex?
As Steve has noted, and in keeping with the general tenor of the Romer v Evans decision, DOMA purports to accomplish a specific thing but DOMA consists of a combination of overreach and underreach with regards to its purported end, all with the clear intent of disfavoring a particular group of people.
13.
AnonyGrl | October 21, 2011 at 9:56 am
If gay people cannot consider their sexuality an immutable trait, and thus they are not subject to protections, how is it that straight people CAN do so, and thus THEY DO get the protections offered by DOMA?
Why, in fact, do straight people NEED to have their marriages "protected" by DOMA? If one had to say that a group had more power in this debate, it would certainly be straight, married people who have ALL the power, and can get all the attention.
I would DEARLY like to see statistics proving that since the passage of DOMA, single parenthood, orphaned babies and abortions have DECREASED in this country… and marriage before pregnancy has increased. I would also like to see the statistics that show more married people are having children than did before DOMA. What do you think the odds are that they can show that?
14.
Sheryl_Carver | October 21, 2011 at 10:14 am
Oh, AnonyGrl, you are trying to get the bigots to actually think, using logic & facts, which we've seen is something they seem to be incapable of. The sheeple don't think at all, and their so-called leaders think only about what can get them the most money/power/publicity.
Fortunately, reliable polls indicate that the majority of Americans are moving toward equality for ALL people, not just the heterosexual ones. More & more judicial decisions are also supporting equality, but too many bigots in our government are doing everything they can to permanently enshrine their bigotry into state & federal governments. Bleah! I hope someday these hateful beings realize that they are no better than the KKK.
15.
Sam_Handwich | October 21, 2011 at 10:56 am
Speaking of preserving traditional marriage…..
Medford, NJ Mayor Chris Myers (R) denies an accusation from a California male escort that "he was promised a car and other gifts following a paid sexual encounter," the Bucks County Courier Times reports.
Myers, a married father of two children, was first elected in 2001 as a Medford councilman.
http://www.phillyburbs.com/news/local/the_intelli…
The problem with his denial? The accuser has put up a website "with photos that show a man who appears to be Myers in his underwear lying on a bed, as well as other photos of him and personal IDs."
The escort's website: http://www.mayormyers.webs.com/
16.
Paul B. | October 21, 2011 at 10:59 am
I couldn't agree with you more Ronnie. I've wondered for years, why we pay our equal share of taxes and received less for our money than the straight community…esp. the straight married community. As a self-employed person I can manipulate my tax returns easily…too easily in fact. I pay quarterly taxes and sometimes think I'll deduct 10-20 percent from my check to the govt. for unequal treatment under the law.
Unfortunately, the IRS doesn't hear our story…but if thousands of us did it, maybe they would listen.
17.
Bob | October 21, 2011 at 11:05 am
Like any good Republican, I'm sure the good mayor won't let facts get in the way of his denial.
18.
jpmassar | October 21, 2011 at 1:30 pm
"Protect Marriage Washington just filed an emergency motion to the 9th Circuit federal court to appeal the court ordered release of the 138,000 names sponsoring Referendum 71, the failed 2009 ballot measure to overturn the state’s gay partnership laws. The court will consider the emergency motion on Monday even though the Secretary of State has already released 30 DVDs with all the signers’ names."
http://www.queerty.com/was-138000-homophobes-stay…
19.
AnonyGrl | October 21, 2011 at 1:53 pm
What he said!
20.
AnonyGrl | October 21, 2011 at 1:57 pm
Here is hoping that one of US got one of those 30 and spreads the info all OVER the place immediately!!!
21.
Elizabeth_Oakes | October 21, 2011 at 1:58 pm
I think you mean "incarnation" but I think "incantation" is just as good,if not better, especially considering recent decisions of evil like Citizens United. Thank You Auto-Correct!
22.
Elizabeth_Oakes | October 21, 2011 at 3:11 pm
Now, now, be fair: Anthony Weiner issued a denial too, and he was a Democrat. We might want to forward the Myers story to GayHomophobe.com, though
And hmm, mayormyers.com site unavailable due to "using up its monthly bandwidth." Another link, anyone?
23.
Ronnie | October 21, 2011 at 3:15 pm
Op-ed: Equal Sacrifice Demands Equal Rights
While the Wilfahrt family shows us the right way to honor soldiers who died in combat, the Republican presidential candidates show us the wrong way. http://www.advocate.com/Politics/Commentary/Op_ed…
"We say the greatest sacrifice of all is to give one’s life for one’s country. It is those who are left behind whoensure the legacy. Corporal Andrew Wilfahrt was willing to die for his country, and notwithstanding their insurmountable grief, his parents are charged with ensuring their son’s relevance in a country that has failed LGBT service members."……..
"Andrew died “protecting rights that he himself could not enjoy, especially the right to marry the person he loved,” said Lori Wilfahrt this past weekend during the first OutServe Leadership Summit National Dinner. Her moving speech delivered to more than 200 post-DADT celebrants highlighted the ongoing discrimination: “The Constitution our son died for was intended to protect rights, not to deny them,” she said."
(me) Awesome on op-ed… The Wilfahrt family are good, admirable, & courageous people. Again, expressing my deepest condolences for the loss of their heroic son. Here is the video attached to the piece…… <3…Ronnie:
The Wilfahrt Story- A Gay American Soldier:
[youtube 7KGMa2mgWV0 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7KGMa2mgWV0 youtube]
24.
Adam Bink | October 21, 2011 at 3:45 pm
Thanks for posting Ronnie. Had the opportunity to meet Lori at a conference in Ft. Lauderdale a few weeks ago. What a strong woman.
25.
Reformed | October 21, 2011 at 3:54 pm
Too funny, I was just reading that and thinking, what articulate people we have commenting here, I will have to add that word to my vocabulary. Thanks Elizabeth, for saving me from a future "Ramona the Pest (Beverly Clery's children's book) moment. (Ramona asks here sister why she doesn't turn on her donzerly, mistaking the "dawn's early light" lyrics from the star spangled banner.)
26.
Reformed | October 21, 2011 at 3:59 pm
Of course, not to any ill intent, just to make the stay moot, and too perhaps drop the illustrous signers a few lines.
27.
Reformed | October 21, 2011 at 4:03 pm
In other words, in spite of our best efforts, we have not successfully suppressed them, and allowing them to marry will eliminate the only remaining potential that we have in the United States to those political gains back. Thats about it I think.
28.
Reformed | October 21, 2011 at 4:04 pm
roll, roll, argh!
29.
Chrys | October 21, 2011 at 4:19 pm
You know, as long as my marriage (6 days old!) is not federally recognized, I am being discriminated against. I don't see how that is okay. As far as being politically powerful? Yeah, right.
30.
Elizabeth_Oakes | October 21, 2011 at 4:46 pm
I do not in any way wish to dismiss the notion that Anton Scalia et al in the conservative wing bear certain similarities to DeathEaters, and I'd have given all my gold Galleons to have Harry Potter appointed Chief Justice rather than John Roberts. Trust me, if there were an incantation to change the composition of this court I'd be on it (and no, "Expelliarmus!" hasn't worked thus far, I've tried.)
31.
Zander1986 | October 21, 2011 at 5:03 pm
Too bad OUR tax money is being used… wish we could have a say in what it was used for instead of having someone use it against us.
32.
Paul | October 21, 2011 at 7:37 pm
Wasn't there a hearidng today in the Golinski case?
33.
Leo | October 21, 2011 at 8:37 pm
No, it's been postponed to December 16th.
34.
Sheryl_Carver | October 21, 2011 at 8:53 pm
"Fact" is a word that apparently is missing from the bigots' dictionaries. Or perhaps the word doesn't appear in their bible. In any case, they seem to think facts are irrelevant.
35.
AnonyGrl | October 21, 2011 at 9:30 pm
I wouldn't even want to DO anything with the info… I would just like it to be OUT there.
36.
AnonyGrl | October 21, 2011 at 9:32 pm
Congratulations on your marriage!!
37.
Phil L | October 22, 2011 at 3:14 am
I think the best thing, like AnonyGrl said, is to simply spread the names out to the public; nothing else. If no one says/does anything to the people on the list then it makes the arguments of Protect Marriage Washington (saying that the signers will be subject to harassment) totally invalid.
38.
AnonyGrl | October 22, 2011 at 6:29 am
I would just like the bigots to know that their names will be out there, that their bigotry will be known. That they cannot hide their homophobia behind anonymity, and that their works will be known.
Doesn't the bible say something about not hiding your light under a bushel? Well, folks, if you are PROUD of being a bigot, go ahead and continue to be as we expose the light you have been hiding… but if you are embarrassed about it (and well you should be) CUT IT THE HELL OUT!
39.
bjasonecf | October 22, 2011 at 7:09 am
I'll go with "Libero Courtus!"
40.
Chrys | October 22, 2011 at 11:33 am
Thank you!
41.
Neil | October 23, 2011 at 4:53 am
My observation is bigots don't seem to mind defending their bigotry nearly as much as being presented with tangible proof of it.
42.
Gregory in SLC | October 24, 2011 at 7:30 am
Yes…CONGRATULATIONS! : D !
Leave a Comment
XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>
TrackBack URL | RSS feed for comments on this post.